Ohio's New Law: Hb 227 And Its Implementation Date

Ohio House Bill 227, which would have allowed Ohioans aged 21 and older to carry a handgun or a concealed firearm without a permit, passed the House on November 17, 2021, by a vote of 60-32. The bill, which also would have made the mandatory eight hours of training optional, was then referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans and Public Safety. However, it did not become law and died in committee.

The bill's journey

Ohio House Bill 227 (OH HB227) was introduced during the 134th General Assembly session. The bill aimed to amend several sections of the Ohio Revised Code concerning firearm possession and concealed weapons. Specifically, the bill sought to extend the firearm possession provisions that apply to a concealed handgun licensee to individuals aged 21 or older who are not prohibited by Ohio or federal law from possessing a firearm. In other words, it would allow individuals over the age of 21 to carry a concealed deadly weapon without a license.

The bill was sponsored by several Republican representatives, including Thomas Brinkman Jr., Kris Jordan, Brian Baldridge, Jamie Callender, and Rodney Creech, among others. It was first introduced and passed by the House on November 1, 2021, with a vote of 8 Yeas and 5 Nays. The bill then progressed to the House Government Oversight Committee, which reported a substitute bill, and then to the Veterans and Public Safety Committee.

On November 17, 2021, the bill was engrossed, meaning it was signed and sealed by the presiding officer of the House. The House passed the bill with a vote of 60 Yeas, 32 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. However, the bill subsequently died in committee. It was referred to the Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee but did not progress further.

The passage of OH HB227, along with SB 215 in the state senate, would have made Ohio the 22nd state to allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Gun rights advocates supported the bill, arguing that Ohio already allows open carry without any requirements, and that law-abiding citizens should have the option to conceal their firearms for self-defence. On the other hand, opponents, including the state's Fraternal Order of Police, argued that the bill would make it easier for criminals to obtain guns in public and that safety training should be a requirement for carrying a concealed weapon.

Gun law changes

Ohio House Bill 227, which would have made significant changes to the state's gun laws, was introduced in 2021 but ultimately did not become law. The bill aimed to amend sections of the Revised Code related to firearm possession, specifically regarding concealed weapons and the requirement for a license.

Currently, in Ohio, individuals are required to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. This process typically involves undergoing a background check and completing mandatory training to ensure gun owners are educated on the safe handling and use of their firearms.

House Bill 227, sponsored by Republican legislators, sought to remove the license requirement for individuals 21 years of age or older who are not prohibited by Ohio or federal law from possessing a firearm. In other words, it would have allowed eligible individuals to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

The bill generated strong opinions on both sides of the debate. Supporters of the bill argued that it upheld Second Amendment rights and promoted responsible gun ownership among law-abiding citizens. They contended that the Constitution does not mandate training as a prerequisite for exercising the right to bear arms.

However, critics of the bill expressed concerns over public safety and the potential for increased gun violence. They argued that removing the training requirement could lead to accidental shootings, suicides, and dangerous situations for both gun owners and law enforcement officers.

The bill passed the House in November 2021 by a vote of 60-32 but subsequently stalled in the Senate. It was referred to the Veterans and Public Safety Committee but did not advance further, effectively dying in committee.

While House Bill 227 did not become law, the debate surrounding it highlights the ongoing discussion and differing perspectives on the balance between gun rights and gun safety regulations in Ohio and across the United States.

Public safety

Ohio House Bill 227 (OH HB227) was a partisan bill introduced in 2021 that aimed to amend several sections of the Revised Code related to firearm possession and concealed carry laws in the state. The bill proposed to extend the firearm possession provisions that currently apply to individuals with a concealed handgun license to those who are 21 years of age or older and not prohibited by Ohio or federal law from possessing a firearm, without the need for a license.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 60-32 on November 17, 2021, and was referred to the Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee. However, it appears that the bill did not progress further and was engrossed and died in committee. The current status of the bill is listed as "dead".

The main public safety concern surrounding this bill is the potential impact on gun control and safety. The bill would have allowed individuals 21 years of age or older in Ohio to carry a handgun or a concealed firearm without a permit, which opponents argue could lead to more suicides and gun-related incidents. They argue that mandatory training is crucial to gun safety and that removing this requirement could put guns in the wrong hands, endangering the public, including police officers.

Supporters of the bill, on the other hand, argue that it upholds the Second Amendment right to bear arms and that while people should get training, it should not be a requirement to exercise their constitutional rights. They believe that concealed firearm carriers are largely law-abiding citizens.

The bill's potential impact on public safety is a highly debated topic, with critics expressing concerns about the removal of training requirements and the potential consequences for gun-related incidents and public safety.

Second Amendment rights

Ohio House Bill 227, which regards concealed weapons and concealed carry without a license, passed the House on November 17, 2021, by a vote of 60-32. The bill would allow Ohioans aged 21 and older to carry a handgun or a concealed firearm without a permit. It would also make the mandatory eight hours of training optional.

Supporters of the bill argue that it is a pro-Second Amendment legislation that gives citizens the right to bear arms. Senator Niraj Antani, a co-sponsor of the bill, stated that "people should get training, but it doesn't have to be required. The Constitution does not require training in order to have your constitutional rights." He added that "concealed firearm carriers, by and large, are law-abiding citizens who are trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights."

Critics of the bill, such as Dion Green, whose father died in the 2019 Dayton mass shooting, argue that it could lead to more suicides and gun violence. Green said that the bill puts guns in the wrong hands and that it is dangerous for everyone, including police officers. He believes that the bill strips away important barricades that keep people safe.

The bill was referred to the Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee and was pending in that committee as of November 30, 2021. It is unclear if or when the bill will become law.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment has been the subject of much debate and interpretation over the years. Some argue that it protects the right of individuals to possess firearms, while others believe it only applies to militias or military organizations. The Supreme Court has generally upheld the individual right to bear arms but has also recognized certain restrictions and regulations on gun ownership.

Police and public danger

On November 18, 2021, two gun laws passed the Ohio House and advanced to the Senate. One of these was House Bill 227, which aimed to make concealed carry permits optional and reduce the required training hours. While proponents of the bill argued that it would enable law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and uphold their constitutional right to bear arms, critics raised concerns about its potential impact on public safety and police interactions.

House Bill 227, if enacted, would have made significant changes to the state's firearm laws. Firstly, it would have allowed individuals aged 21 and older to carry concealed deadly weapons without a license. This provision sparked concerns from law enforcement and public safety advocates, who argued that doing away with the license requirement would create challenges for police officers in their interactions with the public. They contended that knowing whether an individual has a firearm is crucial for officer safety and effective policing.

The bill also proposed to rename the concealed handgun license as a concealed weapons license, expanding the scope to include all deadly weapons. Additionally, it sought to eliminate the requirement for licensees to promptly notify law enforcement officers that they possess a firearm, unless specifically asked. This particular aspect of the bill generated debate, with critics arguing that it could increase tensions between citizens and police and potentially hinder effective policing.

Another point of contention was the reduction in training requirements. House Bill 227 suggested mandating only eight hours of training for individuals carrying concealed weapons, a significant decrease from the current standards. Opponents of the bill, including District 12 Rep. Juanita Brent (D), voiced their concern that lowering the training threshold could lead to inadequate preparation for handling firearms safely and responsibly. They argued that comprehensive training is essential to mitigate the risks associated with gun ownership and ensure that individuals are equipped to handle firearms properly.

The bill's supporters, however, maintained that it would empower law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights. They asserted that the current license process is problematic and that individuals should have the freedom to carry concealed weapons without excessive bureaucracy.

In conclusion, while House Bill 227 aimed to expand gun rights and reduce regulatory burdens, critics warned that it could compromise public safety and create challenges for law enforcement. The debate surrounding this bill highlights the ongoing tension between upholding constitutional rights and addressing public safety concerns in the context of firearm legislation.

Frequently asked questions